Free Practice Questions for IFSE Institute LLQP Exam

One of the significant advantages of segregated funds is creditor protection, which is particularly beneficial for business owners and professionals who may face potential claims from creditors. Under LLQP principles, segregated funds are insurance contracts, and when beneficiaries such as spouses or children are named, the investment may be protected from creditors in the event of bankruptcy or legal action. This makes segregated funds distinct from other investment types, which do not inherently offer creditor protection unless specific trusts or structures are in place​​.

Option A is incorrect as Assuris provides limited coverage rather than full protection, Option B is partially true but not unique to segregated funds, and Option D is incorrect as segregated funds typically do not require medical underwriting.

According to the LLQP Segregated Funds and Annuities and Investment & Savings curriculum, one of the key personal risks that must be considered when assessing an investor profile is the risk of job loss. When a client faces a real possibility of unemployment, the primary financial concern is access to funds to cover living expenses during a period of reduced or lost income.

In this scenario, Albert’s most immediate need is liquidity. Liquidity refers to how quickly and easily an investment can be converted into cash without significant loss of value. The LLQP study guide emphasizes that highly liquid investments are especially important for short-term needs, emergency funds, and situations where income may be interrupted. Examples include savings accounts, money market funds, or cashable low-risk instruments that preserve capital.

Option A correctly addresses this need by identifying an investment that can be cashed out quickly without a decrease in value. Such investments allow Albert to maintain financial flexibility if he loses his job, ensuring that he can meet essential expenses like mortgage payments, utilities, and groceries without being forced to sell long-term or volatile investments at an inopportune time.

The other options are not appropriate given Albert’s situation. Annuities provide long-term, often irreversible income streams and are not suitable for clients who may need immediate access to capital. Creditor protection is relevant for individuals at risk of lawsuits or business failure, not income interruption from job loss. Broad diversification helps manage market risk but does not solve the problem of short-term cash needs during unemployment.

The LLQP curriculum clearly states that investments should be aligned with both financial objectives and personal risk factors, including employment stability. When employment risk is high, liquidity becomes the dominant consideration.

Therefore, based on LLQP-approved investor profiling principles, the correct answer is Option A, an investment that can be accessed quickly without a loss in value.

According to the LLQP Group Savings and Pension Plans curriculum, a Defined Benefit Pension Plan (DBPP) represents a significant long-term obligation for an employer. In a DBPP, the employer guarantees a specific retirement benefit to employees, typically based on years of service and earnings. As a result, the employer bears the investment risk and funding responsibility. Because of this obligation, pension legislation places strict limits on when and how such a plan may be terminated.

The most clear-cut circumstance under which a defined benefit pension plan may be terminated is when the employer becomes insolvent or goes bankrupt. In this situation, the employer is no longer financially capable of maintaining the plan. Pension standards legislation recognizes that continuing the plan is no longer feasible, and the plan may be wound up. This is why Option C is correct. Even in bankruptcy, however, employee pension rights are protected to the extent possible, and pension assets must be distributed according to legislated priorities.

Options A and B are incorrect because business growth—whether faster company growth or a rapid increase in plan membership—does not justify terminating a DBPP. In fact, growth often strengthens a company’s ability to support pension obligations rather than undermining it. Pension plans are designed to accommodate changes in workforce size and business expansion.

Option D is also incorrect. When a company is sold to another employer with an identical or comparable pension plan, pension legislation generally allows the plan to be continued or transferred, rather than terminated. The intent of pension regulation is to preserve employees’ accrued benefits, not eliminate them due to corporate restructuring.

The LLQP curriculum emphasizes that DBPPs are highly regulated precisely because employees rely on them for retirement security. Termination is therefore permitted only in exceptional circumstances, with employer insolvency being the most definitive example.

Accordingly, the most accurate and LLQP-compliant answer is Option C.

Eric has a shorter time horizon (3–5 years) and needs a lower-risk, more diversified investment approach suitable for saving for a house. A balanced fund spreads investments across stocks and bonds, helping reduce risk compared to the high volatility of a single-sector natural resources fund.

Exact Extract:

"Balanced funds combine equity and fixed-income investments to reduce portfolio volatility, providing moderate growth for investors with medium-term objectives."

(Reference: Segfunds-E313-2020-12-7ED, Chapter 2.2.5 Balanced Funds【49:1†Segfunds-E313-2020-12-7ED.pdf**)

A birth certificate is used for identity verification, not for determining investment goals, risk tolerance, or financial needs. An investor profile is built from documents that demonstrate financial assets, liabilities, income, and personal objectives.

Exact Extract:

"Information used to determine an investor profile includes assets, liabilities, income, investment objectives, and risk tolerance. Identification documents like birth certificates are not relevant to determining investment needs."

(Reference: Segfunds-E313-2020-12-7ED, Chapter 4.1 Financial Situation of the Investor​)

Sasha’s plan allows him to choose his own investments, and the company is required to contribute, while his own contributions are optional. This structure is indicative of a Defined Contribution Pension Plan (DCPP). In a DCPP, the employer contributes a fixed amount to the employee’s retirement plan, and employees often have control over how their funds are invested. Employee contributions are typically voluntary, as outlined by LLQP guidelines on pension plans​.

Options B, C, and D do not match because Defined Benefit Plans do not provide investment choice, DPSPs usually have discretionary employer contributions, and group RRSPs are not pension plans and typically involve mandatory employee contributions.

Due to Jessica's reduced life expectancy, an impaired life annuity would provide higher monthly payments than a standard life annuity. This type of annuity takes her medical condition into account, offering larger payouts based on a shorter expected payment period. LLQP resources recommend impaired life annuities for individuals with significant health issues, as these provide better income compared to other types​​.

Options A and C offer a fixed period but don’t maximize monthly income for someone with a reduced life expectancy. Option B would provide a standard income for life but not the potentially enhanced income from an impaired annuity.

As per LLQP regulations, insurance agents like Serge are required to provide receipts for any deposits they receive, regardless of the payment method, to ensure transparency and proper documentation of client transactions. This applies to cash, cheques, or bank drafts, offering proof of the transaction to Karine and helping maintain accurate records​.

Option A is incorrect as it lacks specific relevance to the transaction process. Option B is incorrect, as agents generally need to remit funds to the insurer as promptly as possible, with timing requirements varying by jurisdiction but typically within days. Option D is incorrect because cheques should be made payable to the insurer, not the agent, to prevent misappropriation of funds.

Under the LLQP Segregated Funds and Annuities curriculum, a licensed life insurance agent must begin investment discussions by identifying the client’s objectives, time horizon, and need for access to funds. In Mark’s case, two objectives are clearly stated: achieving growth of his principal over time and maintaining ready access to the funds in case he wishes to purchase farmland. These objectives directly correspond to the investment concepts of compounding and liquidity.

Compounding is a core investment principle emphasized in the LLQP study materials. It refers to the process by which investment earnings are reinvested to generate additional earnings over time. Interest, dividends, or capital gains earned in one period become part of the principal in the next period, allowing growth to accelerate as time progresses. Given Mark’s young age, compounding is particularly relevant, as a longer investment horizon increases the potential benefits of compounded returns. Explaining this concept helps Mark understand how his $100,000 inheritance can grow meaningfully over time even without aggressive investment strategies.

Liquidity is equally important in this scenario. The LLQP curriculum defines liquidity as the ease and speed with which an investment can be converted into cash without a significant loss of value. Because Mark may need to access his funds quickly to purchase land, Devon must explain how different investments vary in liquidity and the implications of early withdrawals. Some investments may offer higher growth potential but restrict access or impose penalties, while others provide easier access at the expense of lower returns. Understanding liquidity allows Mark to balance growth with flexibility.

Although diversification, asset classes, and present value are valid investment concepts, they do not directly address Mark’s expressed concern about immediate access to funds combined with growth. Therefore, based strictly on LLQP Segregated Funds and Annuities principles, the correct and most relevant concepts for Devon to explain are compounding and liquidity, making Option C the correct answer.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Denise’s annual salary is $60,000, and her group disability insurance covers 60% of this, equating to $36,000/year or $3,000/month ($60,000 × 0.60 ÷ 12). Louis earns $45,000/year, which translates to $3,750/month ($45,000 ÷ 12). Together, their current combined monthly income is $6,750 ($3,000 + $3,750). Their monthly expenses are $6,000, leaving a surplus of $750/month under normal circumstances.

Option A: This assumes simultaneous disability is the only risk, which is incorrect. The LLQP emphasizes assessing individual disability risks based on income replacement needs, not just joint probability (Chapter 2:Insurance to Protect Income).

Option B: If Denise is disabled, she receives $3,000/month from her group plan, and Louis earns $3,750/month, totaling $6,750/month. This meets the $6,000 need, but it assumes Louis remains able to work, ignoring his risk of disability.

Option C: Increasing Denise’s coverage to 75% ($3,750/month) is unnecessary since $6,750 already exceeds $6,000 when Louis works. This doesn’t address Louis’ lack of protection.

Option D: If Louis is disabled, he earns $0, and Denise’s $3,000/month (her full salary, assuming no disability) falls short of $6,000 by $3,000. Louis needs coverage for 60% of his income ($45,000 × 0.60 = $27,000/year or $2,250/month), which, combined with Denise’s $3,000, totals $5,250—close to their needs, with adjustments possible. This aligns with the LLQP’s focus on ensuring both income earners are protected (Chapter 6:Client Profile).